Wine critic fights the French champagne police

Can an Australian wine critic and educator call her business Champagne Jayne? That’s the question at the centre of a year-long dispute between businesswoman
Jayne Powell
, who has used the name for years, and the Comité Interprofessionnel du Cin de Champagne (CIVC), the French trade association that protects wines from the Champagne region.

The committee claims Ms Powell has misled consumers because she ­promoted sparkling wines that are not technically champagne.

“[Ms Powell’s] promotion or endorsement of products under or by reference to the name "champagne", where the products are not champagne wines, damages the reputation and goodwill that the name champagne has for some members of the public in Australia," the committee says in its statement of claim.

“The conduct of [Ms Powell] lessens the distinctiveness of and the goodwill in the name of champagne in Australia . . . and therefore damages the goodwill of the champagne sector," it says in court documents.

This Facebook post was cited in the statement of claim as an example of misrepresentation.
Source: Facebook

The committee cites instances of Ms Powell promoting non-champagne sparking wines on her Twitter and Facebook accounts and it wants the court restrain her from using these to promote non-champagne wine.It may also claim compensation for loss and damage to the champagne brand.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

In her defence, Ms Powell says the general public would not expect her champagne business to exclusively promote champagne.

“I think the members of the public would expect that the services would predominantly or generally pertain to champagne but not to the exclusion of anything else," Ms Powell says in a defence document filed with the court.

“The very reason that I am not presently in Australia to defend this case in person is because the CIVC’s wrongful action has made it too difficult to work comfortably as Champagne Jayne in Australia and I have therefore had to seek work overseas."

Bankruptcy looms

It is understood her wine education and event business, which turns over less than $100,000 a year, could be forced into bankruptcy if the committee wins and Ms Powell is forced to pay their legal costs, which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The French committee also opposes Ms Powell’s champagne trade mark, in a separate case to be heard in February.

This is the first time the committee has brought a case against an Australian business in the Federal Court.

Champagne Jayne is not the only business using the word champagne as part of a business.

Victoria’s Secret lingerie retailer has registered a Strawberries & Champagne trademark in Australia for body care products. A self-help brand, Champagne Life on a Beer Budget, is also a registered trademark.

“I can understand why [the French] are doing it, to protect the integrity of the champagne name.

“At the same time you have to credit the general public with some level of ability to distinguish between champagne and other types of sparking wine."

But despite the strength of the legal argument, Mr Hallett said it may be sensible for parties to settle.

“Some parties go into litigation as a matter of principle. But it’s not necessarily a financially sensible way to approach it," he said.

K&L Gates intellectual property lawyer Jonathan Feder said it was important to consider legal issues with branding before starting a business.

“If someone else has a trademark and if you spend all this money building your business only to find what you’re doing is illegal, it becomes a major expense either to rebrand or defend the brand."

Losing its mojo

Justin Dry, co-founder of online wine retailer Vinomofo, said he felt sympathy for Ms Powell. “It’s a pretty powerful organisation she’s up against and she’s just one person. And they’re being quite ruthless about it."

Mr Dry went through a similar legal dispute when a wine business challenged his company’s original name Vinomojo.

“We created all this brand, social channels, artwork and promotion behind it. We had this landing page up and we had over 1000 people signed up for the pre-launch.

“They were all lawyered up and we didn’t have the money to fight it."

Although his solicitor advised him the business had a good chance of ­winning the case, he and his co-founder decided to change the business name to ride on the wave of the online retail boom in 2011.

“Our legal advice was that we would win but if we went to a judge, the judge would stop us from trading until the case was heard," he said.